1. We sometimes angrily confront, pointedly ostracize, castigate, or denounce those whom we think have committed moral offences. Conduct of this kind may be called blaming behaviour. When genuine,...

The blameworthy deserve blame. So runs a platitude of commonsense morality. My aim here is to set out an understanding of this desert claim (as I call it) on which it can be seen to be a familiar and attractive aspect of moral thought. I conclude with a response to a prominent denial of the claim.

Part of our ordinary conception of our freedom is the idea that commonly when we act—and often even when we don’t act—it is up to us whether we do this or that. This paper examines efforts to spell out what must be the case for this idea to be correct. Several claims regarding the basic metaphysics of agential powers are considered; they are found not to shed light on the issue. Thinking about agents’ psychological capacities provides some illumination, though the (...) idea of freedom remains puzzling. (shrink)

Sometimes someone does something morally wrong in clear-eyed awareness that what she is doing is wrong. More commonly, a wrongdoer fails to see that her conduct is wrong. Call the latter behavior unwitting wrongful conduct. It is generally agreed that an agent can be blameworthy for such conduct, but there is considerable disagreement about how one’s blameworthiness in such cases is to be explained, or what conditions must be satisfied for the agent to be blameworthy for her conduct. Many theorists (...) hold that an agent’s blameworthiness for unwitting wrongful conduct must stem from—or trace back to—her blameworthiness for something else. And appeals to tracing in these cases lead some writers to a highly revisionist view, on which people are blameworthy for wrongdoing much less often than we ordinarily think (and our mistake, unfortunately, isn’t about how much wrongdoing there is). In this chapter, I set out the main claims of an argument for such a view and respond to it. I offer grounds for retaining a good many of the judgments that the revisionist would have us reject. The defense rests to a significant extent on commonsense views about the psychological capacities and abilities to act that people ordinarily possess, views that, as far as I can tell, revisionists have not shown to be mistaken. (shrink)

Several philosophers claim that the phenomenology of one’s own agency conflicts with standard causal theories of action, couched in terms of causation by mental events or states. Others say that the phenomenology is prima facie incompatible with such a theory, even if in the end a reconciliation can be worked out. Here it is argued that the type of action theory in question is consistent with what can plausibly be said to be presented to us in our experience of our (...) agency. Several routes to a claim that there is nevertheless a prima facie incompatibility are examined, and all are found wanting. The phenomenology of agency, it is argued, is no threat to a standard causal theory of action. (shrink)

According to what may be called PERMANENT, blameworthiness is forever: once you are blameworthy for something, you are always blameworthy for it. Here a prima facie case for this view is set out, and the view is defended from two lines of attack. On one, you are no longer blameworthy for a past offense if, despite being the person who committed it, you no longer have any of the pertinent psychological states you had at the time of the misdeed. On (...) the other, you can cease to be blameworthy if you sufficiently experience guilt or remorse, suffer enough punishment, or are forgiven for your misdeed. Although several points made in support of the second challenge are accepted, they are entirely consistent with PERMANENT. Neither line of attack, as so far presented, undermines the plausibility of this view stemming from the prima facie case. (shrink)

Let F be a fact in virtue of which an agent, S, is blameworthy for performing an act of A-ing. We advance a slightly qualified version of the following thesis: -/- (Reason) F is (at some time) a reason for S to feel guilty (to some extent) for A-ing. -/- Leaving implicit the qualification concerning extent, we claim as well: -/- (Desert) S's having this reason suffices for S’s deserving to feel guilty for A-ing. -/- We also advance a third (...) thesis connecting desert of feeling guilty with the fittingness of this response. -/- In light of our three theses, we address several claims that have been made regarding responsibility and desert. We take issue with the divorce of desert from responsibility. We find acceptable a claim regarding blameworthiness and reason to induce guilt, and we defend the idea that it is noninstrumentally good that one who is blameworthy be subject to a fitting feeling of guilt. We argue against a view on which desert of blame has a teleological dimension. (shrink)

Many philosophical theories of causation are egalitarian, rejecting a distinction between causes and mere causal conditions. We sought to determine the extent to which people's causal judgments discriminate, selecting as causes counternormal events—those that violate norms of some kind—while rejecting non-violators. We found significant selectivity of this sort. Moreover, priming that encouraged more egalitarian judgments had little effect on subjects. We also found that omissions are as likely as actions to be judged as causes, and that counternormative selectivity appears to (...) apply equally to actions and omissions. (shrink)

Consider the idea that suffering of some specific kind is deserved by those who are guilty of moral wrongdoing. Feeling guilty is a prime example. It might be said that it is noninstrumentally good that one who is guilty feel guilty (at the right time and to the right degree), or that feeling guilty (at the right time and to the right degree) is apt or fitting for one who is guilty. Each of these claims constitutes an interesting thesis about (...) desert, given certain understandings of what desert is. After examining these claims, the paper briefly explores the idea that an offender might deserve certain forms of treatment by others. The paper concludes by contrasting the modest theses on which it focuses with a far bolder one, to the effect that if we are morally responsible, then it makes sense to suppose that some of us might deserve to suffer eternal torment. The more modest theses do not commit one to anything of this sort. (shrink)

Negligence and omission are closely related: commonly, in cases of negligent action, the agent has failed to turn her attention to some pertinent fact. But that omission is itself typically unwitting. A sufficient condition for blameworthiness for an unwitting omission is offered, as is an account of blameworthiness for negligent action. It is argued that one can be blameworthy for wrongdoing done from ignorance even if one is not blameworthy for that ignorance.

A growing number of philosophers now hold that agent causation is required for agency, or free will, or moral responsibility. To clarify what is at issue, this paper begins with a distinction between agent causation that is ontologically fundamental and agent causation that is reducible to or realized in causation by events or states. It is widely accepted that agency presents us with the latter; the view in question claims a need for the former. The paper then examines a “disappearing (...) agent” argument from Derk Pereboom that is aimed at showing that free will requires agent causation that is ontologically fundamental. It is argued that the argument fails. Further, it is argued that, contrary to Pereboom’s claim, the issue raised by his disappearing agent argument is distinct from the problem of present luck that libertarian theories of free will face. The paper concludes with an assessment of the prospects for success of a disappearing agent argument showing that agent causation that is ontologically fundamental is required for agency tout court. (shrink)

It is widely held that one can be responsible for doing something that one was unable to avoid doing. This paper focuses primarily on the question of whether one can be responsible for not doing something that one was unable to do. The paper begins with an examination of the account of responsibility for omissions offered by John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza, arguing that in many cases it yields mistaken verdicts. An alternative account is sketched that jibes with and (...) explains judgments about a variety of omissions cases, including intentional omissions as well as simple failures to act. (shrink)

Accounts of moral responsibility commonly focus on responsibility for actions and their consequences. But we can be responsible as well for omitting to act or refraining from acting, and for consequences of these. And since omitting and refraining are not in every case performing an action, an account of responsibility for actions will not apply straightforwardly to these cases. This paper advances proposals concerning responsibility for omitting, refraining, and their consequences. Providing such an account is complicated by the fact that (...) cases of omitting or refraining are quite varied. (shrink)

Free will is often said—by compatibilists and incompatibilists alike—to be a power (or complex of powers) of agents. This paper offers proposals for, and examines the prospects of, a powers-conception of free will that takes the powers in question to be causal dispositions. A difficulty for such an account stems from the idea that when one exercises free will, it is up to oneself whether one wills to do this or that. The paper also briefly considers whether a powers-conception that (...) invokes powers of a different kind, such as agent-causal or noncausal powers, might fare better with respect to this problem. (shrink)

Consider cases in which an agent simply doesn.t think to do a certain thing, or doesn't think of a crucial consideration favoring doing a certain thing, or intends to do a certain thing but forgets to do it. In such a case, is the agent able to do the thing that she fails to do? Assume that commonly we all‐in can do things that we do not do. Here I argue that, given this assumption, in the cases under consideration, too, (...) commonly agents all‐in can do the things they fail to do. (shrink)

Often when one omits to do a certain thing, there's no action that is one's omission; one's omission, it seems, is an absence of any action of some type. This paper advances the view that an absence of an action--and, in general, any absence--is nothing at all: there is nothing that is an absence. Nevertheless, it can result from prior events that one omits to do a certain thing, and there can be results of the fact that one omits to (...) do something. This is so even if absences cannot be causes or causal effects. (shrink)

Although we are morally responsible for things of various kinds, what we bear direct responsibility for are certain exercises of our agency (and perhaps some omissions of these). Theorists disagree about what kind of agency is in this respect the source of our responsibility. Some hold that it is agency the exercises of which are actions. Others say that it is agency exercised in forming reasons-responsive attitudes on the basis of our take on reasons (or value). With attention to the (...) relation of moral responsibility to moral obligation, I argue for the first of these views. (shrink)

We take it for granted that commonly we act freely and we are generally morally responsible for what we do when we so act. Can there be such a thing as freely omitting to act, or freely refraining or forbearing, and can we be similarly responsible for omitting, refraining, and forbearing? This paper advances a view of freely omitting to act. In many cases, freedom in omitting cannot come to the same thing as freedom in acting, since in many cases (...) omitting to do a certain thing is not a matter of performing an action of any sort. There are nevertheless important similarities. It is argued, further, that we should view responsibility for omitting to act as capable of being basic or underived, not needing to derive from one’s responsibility for prior actions. Finally, brief consideration is given to a proposal concerning what is required for responsibility for omitting to do a certain thing. (shrink)

This chapter is a contribution to an exchange with Carolina Sartorio about intentional omissions.

Several theories of causation reject causation of or by absences. They thereby clash with much of what we think and say about what causes what. This paper examines a way in which one kind of theory, causal dispositionalism, can be modified so as to accept absence causation, while still retaining a fundamental commitment of dispositionalism. The proposal adopts parts of a strategy described by David Lewis. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the problem of the proliferation of causes.

A comprehensive theory of agency will encompass not just acting but also omitting to act and refraining from acting. Some theorists maintain that a causal theory can be applied to acting, omitting, and refraining in a perfectly uniform manner, for each omission or instance of refraining can be identified with some garden-variety action. Here it is argued that in plenty of cases this strategy fails. Sufficient conditions for omitting or refraining are offered that do not require there to be, in (...) every case, anything that is an omission or act of refraining. Disjoining these with a causal theory of action would leave us with a view of agency that is less uniform than what might have been preferred; but diversity in the subject matter, it is suggested, might preclude any more uniform theory. (shrink)

This paper examines the view of abilities to act advanced by Kadri Vihvelin in Causes, Laws, and Free Will. Vihvelin argues that (i) abilities of an important kind are “structurally” like dispositions such as fragility; (ii) ascriptions of dispositions can be analyzed in terms of counterfactual conditionals; (iii) ascriptions of abilities of the kind in question can be analyzed similarly; and (iv) we have the free will we think we have by having abilities of this kind and being in circumstances (...) that are propitious for their exercise. I raise doubt about each of these claims. Further, I argue that even if abilities of the kind in question are dispositions, and even if determinism is compatible with our commonly having unexercised abilities of this kind, the compatibility of determinism and free will remains in question. (shrink)

This paper is part of a symposium discussing Helen Steward's A METAPHYSICS FOR FREEDOM. Steward argues for what she calls Agency Incompatibilism: agency itself is incompatible with determinism. This paper examines what Steward presents as her main argument for Agency Incompatibilism and finds it wanting.

Throughout the biological and biomedical sciences there is a growing need for, prescriptive ‘minimum information’ (MI) checklists specifying the key information to include when reporting experimental results are beginning to find favor with experimentalists, analysts, publishers and funders alike. Such checklists aim to ensure that methods, data, analyses and results are described to a level sufficient to support the unambiguous interpretation, sophisticated search, reanalysis and experimental corroboration and reuse of data sets, facilitating the extraction of maximum value from data sets (...) them. However, such ‘minimum information’ MI checklists are usually developed independently by groups working within representatives of particular biologically- or technologically-delineated domains. Consequently, an overview of the full range of checklists can be difficult to establish without intensive searching, and even tracking thetheir individual evolution of single checklists may be a non-trivial exercise. Checklists are also inevitably partially redundant when measured one against another, and where they overlap is far from straightforward. Furthermore, conflicts in scope and arbitrary decisions on wording and sub-structuring make integration difficult. This presents inhibit their use in combination. Overall, these issues present significant difficulties for the users of checklists, especially those in areas such as systems biology, who routinely combine information from multiple biological domains and technology platforms. To address all of the above, we present MIBBI (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations); a web-based communal resource for such checklists, designed to act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for those exploring the range of extant checklist projects, and to foster collaborative, integrative development and ultimately promote gradual integration of checklists. (shrink)

“1950’li yıllarda dönemin büyük felsefecileri arasında dinsel inancı savunan bir kişi bile yoktu. 1990’lı yıllarda Yale’den UCLA’ya, Oxford’dan Heidelberg’e kadar birçok yerde insanın manevi yanını savunan ve geliştiren yüzlerce kitap yazılacak, sel olup akacaktı. Aradaki 40 yıllık süre zarfındaysa sadece ve sadece Alvin Plantinga vardı.” Kelly James Clark Tanrı’nın veya tanrıların varlığı sorusu felsefenin ezeli sorularından biri olagelmişse de Nietzsche’nin Tanrı’nın ölümünü ilan ettiği günden bu yana onu doğrularcasına yaşanan acılar, savaşlar, kötülükler bu konudaki tartışmaların sesini uzun süre bastırdı. Ama (...) özellikle yüzyılın ikinci yarısından sonra palazlanan analitik felsefede meydana gelen “metafiziğe dönüş”, dine yakınlık duyan, en azından dinle ilgilenen filozofların tekrar Yahudi-Hıristiyan ve İslam geleneklerinde anlaşıldığı şekliyle Tanrı’nın varlığına duyulan inancın gerekçelerini yeniden değerlendirmelerine, konuya yeni bir bakış ve araçlarla bakmalarına vesile oldu. Alvin Plantinga’nın bu kitabı, yayımlandığı tarihten itibaren “analitik din felsefesi” alanının da en önemli ve sarsıcı eserlerinden biri hâline geldi ve Tanrı’nın ölmediğini ilan etti. Anselmus’tan Hume’a, Kant ve pozitivistlerden John Mackie gibi modern ateologlara kadar felsefe geleneğiyle hesaplaşan Plantinga, bu abidevi çalışmasında ontolojik, kozmolojik ve teleolojik tanrı kanıtlamalarının eski ve yeni biçimlerinin çıkmazlarını, meziyetlerini ve sunduğu imkânları değerlendiriyor. Tanrı’nın varlığına duyulan inanç ile diğer insanların varlığına ve zihinlerine duyulan inanç arasındaki şaşırtıcı ve sarsıcı bağlantıyı ortaya koyuyor. (shrink)

This paper explores the role of speculative anticipation in ethics during the COVID-19 pandemic and provides a structure to think about ethical decision-making in times of extreme uncertainty. We identify three different but interwoven domains within which speculative anticipation can be found: global, local, and projective anticipation. Our analysis aims to open possibilities of seeing the situatedness of others both locally and globally in order to address larger social issues that have been laid bare by the presence of SARS-CoV-2. Our (...) account of speculative anticipation builds on the analyses of the gendered impact of anticipation in technoscience by Vincanne Adams, Michelle Murphy and Adele Clarke; studies in cultural anthropology by Ann Laura Stoler; and the recent research on speculative fiction by Esther Jones. Like theirs, ours is intended to be useful. We offer it as a tool to recast questions and revisit assumptions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is hoped that by using the frame of the ethics of speculative anticipation, one might be able to consider how to avoid those futures that reproduce inequity, and instead actively and responsibly envision those futures that are informed by equity and sustainability. (shrink)

Biologists, historians of biology, and philosophers of biology often ask what is it to be an individual, really. This book does not answer that question. Instead, it answers a much more interesting one: How do biologists individuate individuals? In answering that question, the authors explore why biologists individuate individuals, in what ways, and for what purposes. The cross-disciplinary, dialogical approach to answering metaphysical questions that is pursued in the volume may seem strange to metaphysicians who are not biologically focused, but (...) it is adroitly achieved by the editors. Scott Lidgard (a paleontologist and marine ecologist) and Lynn K. Nyhart (a historian of biology) orchestrate a dialogue among historians of biology, philosophers of biology, and practicing biologists over 10 chapters. These are followed by three reflective commentaries written to frame the different disciplinary perspectives and to highlight the historical, biological, and philosophical themes across the chapters. The result is a volume—in structure and in content—that has much to be generously commended. Biological individuality is a hotly discussed topic, but it is also part of a series of long-standing arguments within both the history and philosophy of biology (HPB) and metaphysics. Notable and fervent debates have centered on evolution and the units of selection, predominantly on Michael T. Ghiselin’s and David L. Hull’s notion of species as individuals, Peter Godfrey-Smith’s Darwinian individuals, and Ellen Clarke’s individuating mechanisms. Lately, it has encompassed non-Darwinian individuals, symbiotic associations like Thomas Pradeu’s immunological individuals, and John Dupré and Maureen A. O’Malley’s metabolic individuals.2 The present volume is curated in a way to introduce the reader to new research in HPB that articulates these debates as well as to introduce and engage in the study of further notions of biological individuality. But its aim is more than an introduction. As the subtitle suggests, it is also intended to give the reader insight into the working together of biologists, historians of biology, and philosophers of biology in figuring out how the notion of biological individuality is instantiated. As such, the problem-centered dialogue that results does more than talk through biological individuality. It shows how the different and often divergent goals of the authors’ disciplines shape not only how they think about individuality but how they communicate this thinking in reciprocal collaboration with others in different disciplines. … cont’d…. (shrink)

It is natural to think that at root, agents are beings that act. Agents do more than this, however – agents omit to act. Sometimes agents do so intentionally. How should we understand intentional omission? Recent accounts of intentional omission have given causation a central theoretical role. The move is well-motivated. If some form of causalism about intentional omission can successfully exploit similarities between action and omission, it might inherit the broad support causalism about intentional action enjoys. In this paper (...) I consider the prospects for causalism about intentional omission. I examine two recent proposals: one Carolina Sartorio (2009) defends, and one Randolph Clarke (2010a) defends. I argue these versions fail, and for a similar reason. Reflection on the function of intention for agency brings this reason to light, and motivates a novel causalism about intentional omission. On the account I go on to defend necessarily, an agent J intentionally omits to A only if an intention of J’s with relevant content (or the intention’s acquisition) causes in J a disposition not to A. Though the causal work done by intentions to omit differs in some cases from the causal work done by intentions to act, it turns out that causalism about intentional behavior (i.e., about action and omission) is viable. (shrink)

To meet the luck objection to incompatibilism, philosophers such as Timothy O’Connor, Randolph Clark, and William Rowe resurrected the Reidian notion of agent causation, which implies the “Substance-Causal Thesis” (SCT): some causes are fundamentally substances, not events. I examine an objection to SCT by C. D. Broad, developed by Carl Ginet, that substances cannot cause events because substances cannot explain why events happen when they do. The objection fails as it rests on a demand for contrastive explanations of free (...) actions. However, I show that a slightly different objection succeeds in showing SCT false. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The individual-community relationship has always been one of the most fundamental topics of social sciences. In sociology, this is known as the micro-macro relationship while in economics it refers to the processes, through which, individual actions lead to macroeconomic phenomena. Based on philosophical discourse and systems theory, many sociologists even use the term "emergence" in their understanding of micro-macro relationship, which refers to collective phenomena that are created by the cooperation of individuals, but cannot be reduced to individual actions. (...) "Emergence" theories attempt to explain the nature of society as a complex system by examining how individuals and their relationships lead to the creation of integrated and macro-social phenomena such as markets, educational systems, cultural beliefs, and shared social practices. As a prelude to activity, every researcher has to answer the question from the methodological point of view, how is it possible to study the behavior of social groups and how can we gain knowledge about the laws related to social groups? Anyone who deals with humanities and social sciences or any reality and phenomenon that affects human beings, inevitably deals with the reality that is emerging. In fact, emergence occurs when one level of reality emerges radically from another level. Examples of emergent levels of reality include how the mind emerges from the body; or the way society emerges from human beings. Therefore, when there is an emerging factor, different scientific disciplines should be used, because it is inevitable to talk about social affairs, psychology and neurobiology, as well as physical and even chemical. -/- INTRODUCTION Since its beginning in the 19th century, sociology has faced the fundamental question of what a social phenomena stands for? At a glance, sociologists deal with the study of social groups, collective behavior, institutions, social structures, social networks, and social dynamics, and ultimately all such phenomena are composed of individuals. Therefore, social phenomena seem to have no independent ontological status, and in this case, sociology is ultimately about reducible individuals. Different approaches about the micro-macro relationship, using the concept of "emergence", argue that although collective phenomena are created by individuals, they cannot be reduced to individual action. The term "emergence" is used to distinguish "emergent results" from " Procedural results". Results are called Procedural that can only be calculated by adding or subtracting the causes that act together. On the contrary, they are emergent outcomes that are qualitatively novel compared to the causes from which they originate. An example of such emergent results is mental characteristics that emerge from neural processes, but are not considered among the characteristics of neural processes of components - which are their origin. Philosophical debates about emergentism and reductionism focus on the mind-brain relationship, but as many philosophers have noted, they can be generalized to apply to any hierarchical set of features. The cognitive revolution reactivated a 19th century controversy between theorists of Identity and dualism. The theorists of Identity believe in reductionist materialism and elimination of metaphysics, according to which the mind is nothing more than the biological, while the dualists believe that the mind and the brain are distinct from each other. Emergence has been considered as a third way between the theories of Identity and dualism. -/- METHODOLOGY Interdisciplinarity Is fundamentally indicated by the dominance of open systems as well as social and emerging systems at different levels. Therefore, as long as we are facing a new emergentism, there will necessarily be different fields and an interdisciplinary method. The commonality of social sciences and cognitive sciences on the issue of emergence provides the possibility of interaction and exchange of concepts between these two for deeper research. Therefore, in this research, apart from the concepts of Subvenience and downward causation, we have used multiple realization and wildly disjunctive, which are used to explain the emerging concept in cognitive sciences, including neurobiology, psychology, and philosophy. For analytical and interdisciplinary approaches, after examining the concepts of subvenience, and wildly disjunctive, Individualistic and collectivist emergentism have been reviewed. And then their adequacy is criticized and evaluated in meeting strong emergence conditions. -/- FINDINGS Philosophers of the mind have been able to define the conditions of irreducibility and downward causation, which are essential for strong emergence, by using the principle of subvenience with the help of multiple realization and wildly disjunctive principles. Therefore, by definition, emergentist individualism suffers from the problem of how to explain downward causality and irreducibility, and emergentist collectivism faces the challenge of reification. The analysis of the challenges facing the two methodological approaches of individualism and collectivism leads us to three unresolved issues about the emerging phenomenon, which are realism, downward causality, and mechanism. Despite the differences in the stances of these two approaches regarding the aforementioned triple problems, individualists and collectivists both agree that some social characteristics are reducible; and some others are irreducible due to their complexity, the determination of which, depends on the case study of the mechanism of emergence of each social characteristic. -/- CONCLUSION An emergence that is consistent with reductionism is called a weak emergence. And strong emergence includes the principle of irreducibility and downward causality. According to strong emergence, the characteristics of social phenomena have downward causal power, which cannot be reduced to the causal forces. The principle of subvenience, together with multiple realization and wildly disjunctive, can provide the conditions of irreducibility and downward causality, which are essential conditions of strong emergence. Based on the philosophical analysis of two methodological approaches, individualist and collectivist, it can be concluded that emergentist individualism suffers from the problem of how to explain downward causality and irreducibility, and reification collectivism faces the challenge of reification. The analysis of the problems faced by these two approaches leads us to three unresolved issues, which are realism, downward causality, and mechanism. individualist emergentists acknowledge the existence of emergent social characteristics, but despite this, they believe that these characteristics are not real but merely analytical constructs that require explanation based on individuals and their mutual actions. But collectivists argue that emergentism yields a categorical ontology and supports social realism. They accept the dependence of social characteristics on individuals, but claim that social entities and structures are ontologically independent. Individualists and collectivists both agree that some social characteristics are reducible; and others are irreducible due to their complexity; and the only way to recognize this is to engage in empirical studies of the mechanisms and temporal processes of "emergence" that create social characteristics. -/- NOVELTY The newness of this compact article is as follows: a) Presenting an interdisciplinary approach using the analysis of philosophy of cognitive sciences, including the philosophy of mind, neurobiology and psychology to formulate the issue of social emergence; b) Criticizing individualist and collectivist methodological approaches to the issue of social emergence and explaining the sufficiency and shortcomings of both in providing weak and strong emerging conditions; c) Explaining and categorizing the challenges facing methodological approaches in explaining the phenomenon of social emergence, in three categories: realism, downward causality, and mechanism. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., & Kim, J. (eds.) (1992). Emergence or reduction? Essays on the prospects of nonreductive physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of Naturalism. New York: Routledge. Bhaskar, R., Danermark, B. & Price, L. (2018). Interdisciplinarity and wellbeing: A critical realist general theory of interdisciplinarity. London and New York: Routledge. Blau, P.M. (1981). Introduction: diverse views of social structure and their common denominator. In Blau, P.M. & Merton, R.K. (eds.), Continuity in Structural Inquiry (pp. 1–23). Beverly Hills: Sage. Blau, P.M. (1987). Microprocess and macrostructure. In K.S. Cook (ed.), Social Exchange Theory (pp. 83–100). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brooks, R.A., & Maes, P. (eds). (1994). Artificial life IV; proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Coleman, J. S. (1987). Microfoundations and macrosocial behavior. In: J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, & Neil J. Smelser (Eds.). The Micro-Macro Link (pp. 153–73). Berkeley: University of California. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Elster, J. (1985). Making sense of Marx. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fodor, J.A. (1974). Special sciences (Or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28(2), 97–115. Fodor, J.A. (1989). Making mind matter more. Philosophical Topics, 17, 59-79. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press. Horgan, T. (1993). From supervenience to superdupervenience: meeting the demands of a material world. Mind, 102, 555-586. Humphreys, P. (1997). How properties emerge”. Philosophy of Science, 64, 1-17. Kim, J. (1999). Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36. Kincaid, H. (1997). Individualism and the unity of science. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Lewis, D.K. (1986). The plurality of worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nigel, G., & Conte, R. (eds.) (1995). Artificial societies; The computer simulation of social life. London: UCL Press. O’Connor, T. (1994). Emergent properties. American Philosophical Quarterly, 31, 91-104. Popper, K.R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row. Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Emergence in sociology: contemporary philosophy of mind and some implications for sociological theory. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 551-585. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). The mechanisms of emergence. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34, 260–282. Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: societies as complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sawyer, R.K. (2003). Nonreductive individualism: Part 2, Social causation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33, 203–224. Winch, P. (1993). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy‭ (SAMT, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: SAMT. (shrink)

SOCIOLOGIA DO TRABALHO: O TRABALHO E A SUA EVOLUÇÃO CONCEITUAL AO LONGO DA HISTÓRIA – SOBRE A DEFINIÇÃO DE TRABALHO -/- -/- SOCIOLOGY OF WORK: WORK AND ITS CONCEPTUAL EVOLUTION THROUGH HISTORY – ON THE DEFINITION OF WORK -/- -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva – IFPE-BJ, CAP-UFPE e UFRPE. E-mails: [email protected] e [email protected]. WhatsApp: (82)98143-8399. -/- -/- RESUMO -/- Começamos, diminuto, com uma análise da complexidade do conceito de “trabalho”. Apresento ao leitor as várias interpretações que o mesmo termo (...) obteve ante as mais diversas culturas. Para essa análise, gozamos de elementos da história e da filosofia do trabalho, tendo como objetivo supremo, culminar numa perspectiva genérica e integral o suficiente para a compreensão dos mais variados trabalhos humanos existentes na história da humanidade e, com isso, sugerir um novo olhar para a sociologia do trabalho, deixando de lado, juntamente com outras disciplinas científicas, um conceito vago, defasado e reduzido, bem como sem potencialidade para o futuro do trabalho, como um trabalho formal e primordialmente assalariado. -/- Palavras-chave: Conceito, Trabalho; História; Definição. -/- ABSTRACT -/- We begin, diminutive, with an analysis of the complexity of the concept of “”work. I present to the reader the various interpretations that the same term has obtained before the most diverse cultures. For this analysis, we enjoy elements of the history and philosophy of work, having as supreme objective, to culminate in a generic and integral perspective sufficient for the understanding of the most varied human works existing in the history of mankind and, thus, to suggest a new look at the sociology of work, leaving aside, together with other scientific disciplines, a vague, laggard and reduced concept, as well as without potentiality for the future of work, as a formal and primarily salaried work. -/- Keywords: Concept; Work; History; Definition. -/- -/- BASES TEMÁTICAS DESSE TRABALHO -/-  O trabalho é um conceito construído socialmente; -/-  A modernidade trouxe consigo mudanças significativas quanto à valorização do trabalho; -/-  A origem dos mercados de trabalho, juntamente com o surgimento do capitalismo, minimizaram o trabalho como um mero emprego assalariado; -/-  O trabalho, no entanto, apresenta múltiplas manifestações nas nossas sociedades. -/- -/- 1. SOBRE A DEFINIÇÃO DO TRABALHO -/- Gostaríamos de começar esse texto com uma introdução à definição de trabalho, uma questão de importância indiscutível, considerando o trabalho não apenas como o objeto de estudo da Sociologia do Trabalho, mas também como um tema de discussão contemporânea que obteve inúmeros conceitos de grandes autores ao longo da história, desde o trabalho como algo “escravista” ao homem, até a supervalorização do mesmo mediante ao homem. -/- O trabalho, nas palavras de Yves Simon (1903-1961) , é um daqueles termos que são precedidos por fatos da vida cotidiana do homem, que se escondem por trás do mistério do habitual ou usual. É um termo, portanto, que possui uma riqueza factual muito superior à qualquer definição que se pode concentrar. Santo Agostinho (354-430), referindo-se ao tempo, sabia o que era, mas se o perguntassem como defini-lo, apontou que não sabia como fazê-lo (“Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio”), traduzindo (“Se ninguém me perguntar, sei o que é; mas se quiser explicá-lo a quem me perguntar, não sei”). -/- Assim como Agostinho, algo parecido acontece conosco quando nos pedem para definir o trabalho. Assim como diria Werner Sombart (1863-1941), a palavra pode não ter um significado real, apesar de seu uso frequente. E é que o trabalho, como uma atividade criativa, faz parte da história humana desde sua gênese, há mais de 2 milhões de anos atrás, quando o homo habilis mostrou-se capaz de criar conscientemente e por si próprio (e não por mera carga genética como acontece com várias espécies animais) seus próprios instrumentos. -/- O supracitado Yves Simon, escolheu em seu texto mais representativo sobre o tema, uma maneira mais razoável de se definir o trabalho. Começou com o método de caso mais óbvio. Nesse sentido, mostrou que a ambivalência entre o trabalho manual e intelectual que o tempo parece não deixá-lo ir completamente, optara pelos “trabalhadores ao invés dos advogados, comerciantes ou homens de letras”. Essa ordem de prioridade não significa exclusão, mas sim graus de aceitação que considero fazer parte do critério ainda mantido por muitos a respeito do termo “trabalho”. -/- Nesse sentido, argumenta-se que o trabalho manual corresponde a sua ligação direta com a natureza física. O termo “direto” não ignora a mediação de máquinas e ferramentas, apenas comenta seu caráter relacional com a natureza. Logo, o trabalho significa a modificação de algo. -/- Entre as características desse trabalho, ao menos o manual, Simon ressalta que é uma atividade apenas transitória. Isso significa que o trabalho produz um efeito fora do agente que o executa. É o caso de um carpinteiro que age sobre a madeira para moldá-la e transformá-la em um bem de uso posterior como uma mesa, um banco, etc. -/- O mesmo autor ressalta que, se o efeito reside apenas no agente e não em um assunto externo, estaríamos enfrentado algo que chamaríamos de jogo, esporte, exercício ou mesmo a “imitação do trabalho”. -/- Por outro lado, o trabalho é uma atividade útil, isto é, propício para produzir um bem que seja útil e desejável por alguém. Finalmente, a racionalidade é um elemento que distingue o trabalho dos homens em relação com os animais. Essa ideia remonta com Hume (1711-1776), que insistia que o trabalho distingue os homens dos animais. Essa visão também será desenvolvida com Marx (1818-1883), que reproduzimos mediante uma célebre passagem do primeiro livro de O Capital. -/- [...] Pressupomos o trabalho numa forma em que pertence exclusivamente ao homem. Uma aranha executa operações semelhantes às do tecelão, e a abelha envergonha mais de um arquiteto humano com a construção dos favos de suas colmeias. Mas o que distingue, de antemão, o pior arquiteto da melhor abelha é que ele construiu o favo em sua cabeça, antes de construí-lo em cera (MARX, 1996, p. 297/98). -/- Na tradição marxista, foi Engels (1820-1895) quem parou mais nesses questões. Em seu ensaio particular escrito em 1876 e intitulado “O papel do trabalho na transformação do macaco em homem”, sintetiza a ideia de que é o trabalho quem cria e faz o homem. -/- Passando para o trabalho intelectual, Simon ressalta que, na verdade, a medida em que contribui para o trabalho manual desenvolvido por outros, a atividade intelectual também poderá ser denominada de trabalho. Avançando nessa concepção do filósofo, posteriormente, ele aponta “para que uma atividade seja qualificada como trabalho, ela deve ser não apenas honesta mas, também, socialmente produtiva”. -/- Essa concepção de utilidade produtiva é a mais generalizada no momento de distinção do trabalho com demais atividades. Como exemplo, podemos citar Friedmann (1902-1977) que aponta que a utilidade é a primeira característica do trabalho humano. E ainda cita economistas como Colson (1853-1939). Ressalta ainda que “o trabalho é o meio pelo qual o homem exerce suas capacidades físicas e morais para a produção de riquezas ou serviços”. Por outro lado, o filósofo Bergson (1859-1941) escreveu que “o trabalho humano consiste em criar utilidade”. Não obstante, Friedmann se pergunta se a teleologia do trabalho é a única variável a ser tomada em conta para a construção da definição do conceito. Nesse sentido, ele aponta a necessidade de se incluir outros fatores relevantes para essa edificação do conceito, uma vez que os animais também “criam utilidade”. Logo, a distinção poderia estar presente no “marco de uma luta social contra a natureza”. Mediante isso, o trabalho seria “essencialmente através da técnica, a transformação que o homem faz da natureza que, por sua vez, reage ao homem modificando-a”. É a mesma visão marxista que fizemos referência anteriormente, segundo o qual o “trabalho é, em primeiro lugar, um processo entre o homem e a natureza, como o qual o homem regula, realiza e a controla por meio de suas ações, sua troca de assuntos com a natureza. Coloca em ação suas forças naturais que configuram sua corporeidade, seus braços e pernas, cabeça e mãos, para que desse modo, possa assimilar, sob uma forma útil à sua própria vida, os materiais que a natureza o proporciona. E ao mesmo tempo que age na natureza externa e a transforma, transforma também sua própria natureza, desenvolvendo, assim, as faculdades antes adormecidas em si”. Inteligentemente, Friedmann foi capaz de assegurar que, no mundo contemporâneo, tal definição é parcial, uma vez que, nem todas as atividades do homem são rurais e manufatureiras, onde a relação-transformação com a natureza é mais evidente. As atividades denominadas terciárias, segundo a tradicional tipologia de Colin Clark (1905-1989), e que ampliarei posteriormente no conceito de trabalho intelectual, também devem ser levadas em consideração. Nesse sentido, Friedmann ressalta que, no século XX, o homem no trabalho não é sempre e menos ainda, no sentido clássico do termo, um homo faber. -/- Todavia, isso força Friedmann a pensar em um conceito diferente de trabalho e, para isso, ele confia que “determinada imposição” é específica e o diferencia de outras atividades que não são trabalho. Dessa maneira, para um trabalho ser tal deverá ter uma quota indispensável de obrigações. -/- Tantas indagações e reflexões acerca do supracitado, nos obriga a perguntamo-nos: a pessoa “trabalha” apenas se for obrigada a fazê-lo? Os animais não trabalham/produzem? Em condições de alienação desenvolvida e, portanto, o homem desconhecendo o fim último do seu labor, não estamos lidando com um trabalho? Quem age sobre a natureza, afim de destruí-la logo, não lhe conferindo valor, está trabalhando? A dona de casa que não produz para o mercado de trabalho não está trabalhando? Todas essas perguntas, se respondidas, fariam menção a um conceito de trabalho que, sem dúvida, ainda não foi unanimemente construído pela humanidade. De fato, quando vemos culturas e povos distintos, notamos que eles lidaram com conceitos muito diferentes sobre o que é e o que não é trabalho. Mesmo dentro dessas culturas – incluindo a nossa- e aqueles tempos - incluindo o nosso -, podemos notar uma pluralidade de abordagens que obedece a perspectivas distintas e, por vezes, conflitantes. Acrescenta-se a isso que, hoje em dia, temos herdado muitos atributos do trabalho das culturas anteriores, o que torna nossa sociedade representada, sociologicamente, por um caldeirão de comportamentos e conceitualizações relacionados ao trabalho, o que dificulta a partir de critérios mais ou menos consensuais. Posteriormente, veremos quais são esses critérios e como eles evoluíram ao longo da história para alicerçar nossa perspectiva contemporânea acerca do trabalho. -/- Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), dado às dificuldades supracitadas, decidiu traçar a etimologia dos termos de trabalho em questão, em sua famosa obra A condição humana de 2007, em que aclara os termos e as distinções entre trabalho e labor. Etimologicamente temos o grego distinguindo a partir de ponein e ergazesthai; o Latim entre laborare e facere ou fabricare; o inglês com labor e work e, por fim, o alemão entre arbeiten e werken. Em todos eles, aponta Arendt, apenas os equivalentes de “trabalho” significam, sem infortúnio, sofrimento e infelicidade. O Arbeiten alemão foi aplicado somente para designar as atividades de campo exercida pelos servos e não ao trabalho dos artesãos, denominado Werken. Outros autores sinalam que em francês Travailler que tem uma substituição do termo “trabalho”, vem do “Tripalium” (do latim “Tripaliare”, uma espécie de instrumento de tortura usado na antiguidade para castigar os escravos). De qualquer forma, todos os supra conceitos não são aceitos por todos os etimologistas. -/- Essas distinções são eloquentes na medida em que reproduzem a visão de diferentes e inúmeras culturas em relação ao trabalho. Nesse sentido, seguindo o pensamento arendtiano, existe um conceito que faz menção à uma avaliação notadamente negativa, e é o que deu origem à conformação do termo “labor”. Por outro lado, a mesma etimologia distingue outro termo (a obra) que representa conotações positivas. O que distingue os dois termos e o que popularizou Locke quando se referiu ao “trabalho de nossos corpos e trabalho de nossas mãos”? A diferença está, de acordo com Arendt, em que o trabalho cria bens fúteis dedicados ao mero consumo promovendo assim, com o passar dos anos, uma sociedade de massas onde desaparecerá o trabalho dito bem feito, típico de artesãos, que criam objetos de uso durável ao longo do tempo, mediante um processo de fabricação e que, em nenhum momento, implica o tédio ou a alienação características de uma sociedade de massa. Os gregos, segundo a pensadora, e então vamos confirmar isso, nunca praticaram essa diferença: tanto o trabalho quanto o artesanato na antiguidade grega eram reservados para os escravos, uma vez que todas as obrigações tinham uma natureza servil. Estes se opuseram à contemplação de quaisquer tipos de atividades. Nos chama a atenção que em nossa sociedade, a partir da idade moderna, houve a inversão da perspectiva acerca do trabalho, isto é, houve uma “glorificação” do mesmo em que foi conferido uma elevação do animal laborans sobre o animal racional. A pensadora alemã ainda nos diz que em vez da distinção trabalho-labor, surge outras que devemos nos atentar, são a relação entre trabalho produtivo e improdutivo; entre trabalho qualificado e não qualificado e, finalmente, entre o já conhecido binômio do trabalho manual-intelectual. A primeira dessas distinções, a relação entre produtividade e improdutividade, foi a mais transcendente e primordial nas origens das ciências econômica e social. Adam Smith (1723-1790) e Karl Marx desprezaram o trabalho improdutivo a tal ponto de não considerar o mesmo como trabalho ao menos que enriquecesse o mundo. Essa distinção se aproxima do supracitado trabalho-labor do princípio. A elevação do trabalho produtivo, acima das visões antigas; é expressamente perceptível em alguns autores clássicos. É o que acontece com as contribuições do filósofo Marx, para quem o trabalho é uma fonte de produtividade (originada na energia humana não exaurida e que produz a mais-valia); com Smith, para quem o trabalho é uma fonte de riqueza; e com Locke, para qual o trabalho é fonte de propriedade. -/- Em relação ao trabalho qualificado e não qualificado, Arendt nos diz que não tem mais sentido na atualidade a sua discussão, uma vez que, esse praticamente desapareceu sob a influência das modernas tecnologias organizacionais. Logo, a distinção entre trabalho e labor estaria obsoleta e abandonada em favor do próprio trabalho. -/- A distinção entre trabalho manual e intelectual tornou-se amplamente interessante desde a perspectiva arendtiana. Com efeito, como cada ocupação deve mostrar sua utilidade para toda a sociedade em seu conjunto, e a utilidade da ocupação intelectual -diz Arendt- chega a ser mais que duvidosa quando confrontada com a glorificação do trabalho, seria mais que natural que os intelectuais quisessem conformar a população laboriosa, algo inimaginável entre os gregos. A isso se soma a demanda que o mundo contemporâneo faz do trabalho intelectual. -/- O pensamento revolucionário do século XX não era alheio a essa distinção. Haya de la Torre (1895-1979), um pensador e líder da oposição peruana do século XX, disse afirmando claramente uma leitura de classe que divide o trabalhador do explorador: -/- “A revolução está em uma distinção que todos podemos fazer por si só: há aqueles que vivem do seu próprio trabalho e há aqueles que vivem do trabalho dos outros. Todos, de acordo com sua consciência, poderá decidir a qual dessas duas classes pertence” (1924, pp. 24-25). (Tradução própria). -/- Se rastrearmos por uma linha histórica, no entanto, veremos como esse trabalho intelectual não foi considerado trabalho, uma vez que partiu do mundo do lazer e da contemplação entre os gregos. -/- Apenas com a “glorificação” do trabalho, antes supracitada, é que o “intelectual” assume uma perspectiva de ser considerado trabalho, não obstante, sob pena de ser considerado improdutivo em uma sociedade onde o valioso parece ser tudo aquilo que tem poder produtivo. -/- Posteriormente, traçaremos uma linha histórica sobre os conceitos e perspectivas acerca dos trabalhos manual e intelectual desde os gregos, passando pela “glorificação” na era moderna até os dias atuais. -/- -/- REFERENCIAL TEÓRICO -/- ARENDT, H. A condição humana. Trad. Roberto Raposo. Posfácio de Celso Lafer. 10ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2007. -/- AZEVEDO, G. C.; SERIACOPI, R. História geral e do Brasil. Vol. Único. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2008. -/- BAVA, A. C. Introdução a sociologia do trabalho. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1990. -/- BOMENY, H. et al. Tempos modernos, tempos de sociologia. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Editora do Brasil, 2013. -/- BRAICK, P. R.; MOTA, M. B. História: das cavernas ao terceiro milênio. 4ª ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2016. -/- FRIEDMANN, G.; NAVILLE, P. Tratado de Sociologia do Trabalho. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1973. -/- MACHADO, I. J. de R.; AMORIM, H. J. D.; BARROS, C. R. de. Sociologia hoje. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2013. -/- MARX, K. O Capital: crítica da economia política. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1996. Col. Os Economistas. -/- NOGUERA, J. A. El concepto de trabajo y la teoría social crítica. Barcelona: Papers, 2002. -/- OLIVEIRA, P. S. de. Introdução a sociologia. 24ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2001. -/- SIMÓN, Y. R. Work, society and culture. 1ª ed. Nova Iorque: Fordham University Press, 1971. -/- SILVA, A. et al. Sociologia em movimento. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2016. -/- TORRE, V. R. H. de la. Moral Revolucionaria. In: Bohemia azul, Lima, n° 7, 1924. -/- Estimule a criatividade, respeite o direito autoral. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva © 2019. (shrink)

Waiting for Godot’s many commentators have emphasized the absurdity of hope in the play, but there has not been an account of how the play reprises hope’s historical transformation and weakening in modernity. This essay provides that account, arguing that Beckett’s Waiting for Godot sponsors a form of hope appropriate to the predicaments of modern societies. Godot stages the blockage of hope by reflecting the obsolescence and fragmentation of the religious and progressive legitimations for the concept that used to be (...) broadly convincing. Despite this blockage, however, Godot does not give in to nihilism. It, rather, models a form of responsible, self-aware hope appropriate to an historical situation where hope does not admit of rational justification. To develop this interpretation of the play and to defend its minimalist conception of hope, the essay draws on Theodor W. Adorno’s Negative Dialectics and aesthetics. (shrink)

As genealogy has gained greater disciplinary recognition over the last two decades, it has become increasingly common to call any historically oriented philosophy, such as Theodor W. Adorno’s, “genealogy.” In this article, I show that Adorno’s philosophy performs genealogy’s defining functions of “problematization” and “possibilization.” Moreover, it does so in unique ways that constitute a significant contribution to genealogical practice. Adorno’s method, here called “tragic genealogy,” is particularly well-suited to the genealogical analysis of traditional philosophical problems and to the critical (...) reanimation of declining, but ethically significant, values. Nevertheless, I also argue that Adorno’s philosophy cannot be assimilated into genealogical practice without rejecting or revising some of its Hegelian influences, particularly its philosophy of history and its modal metaphysics. (shrink)

The distinction between perception and cognition frames countless debates in philosophy and cognitive science. But what, if anything, does this distinction actually amount to? In this introductory article, we summarize recent work on this question. We first briefly consider the possibility that a perception-cognition border should be eliminated from our scientific ontology, and then introduce and critically examine five positive approaches to marking a perception–cognition border, framed in terms of phenomenology, revisability, modularity, format, and stimulus-dependence.

This is a three-part exchange on the relationship between belief and credence. It begins with an opening essay by Roger Clarke that argues for the claim that the notion of credence generalizes the notion of belief. Julia Staffel argues in her reply that we need to distinguish between mental states and models representing them, and that this helps us explain what it could mean that belief is a special case of credence. Roger Clarke's final essay reflects on the (...) compatibility of the previously discussed views with dualist and monist interpretations of our mental states and our ways of modeling them. (shrink)

It is often claimed that pre-attentive vision has an ‘iconic’ format. This is seen to explain pre-attentive vision's characteristically high processing capacity and to make sense of an overlap in the mechanisms of early vision and mental imagery. But what does the iconicity of pre-attentive vision amount to? This paper considers two prominent ways of characterising pre-attentive visual icons and argues that neither is adequate: one approach renders the claim ‘pre-attentive vision is iconic’ empirically false while the other obscures its (...) ability to do the explanatory work, which motivates positing pre-attentive visual icons in the first place. With this noted, I introduce the notion of an ‘Analogue Map’ and argue that it provides a superior characterisation of pre-attentive vision's iconicity. I then argue that this forces a reassessment of debates which have traditionally presupposed the iconicity of pre-attentive vision, emphasising ramifications for the viability of a format-based perception-thought border. (shrink)

This paper refines a controversial proposal: that core systems belong to a perceptual kind, marked out by the format of its representational outputs. Following Susan Carey, this proposal has been understood in terms of core representations having an iconic format, like certain paradigmatically perceptual outputs. I argue that they don’t, but suggest that the proposal may be better formulated in terms of a broader analogue format type. Formulated in this way, the proposal accommodates the existence of genuine icons in perception, (...) and avoids otherwise troubling objections. (shrink)

I argue that analogue mental representations possess a canonical decomposition into privileged constituents from which they compose. I motivate this suggestion, and rebut arguments to the contrary, through reflection on the approximate number system, whose representations are widely expected to have an analogue format. I then argue that arguments for the compositionality and constituent structure of these analogue representations generalize to other analogue mental representations posited in the human mind, such as those in early vision and visual imagery.

Jerry Fodor deemed informational encapsulation ‘the essence’ of a system’s modularity and argued that human perceptual processing comprises modular systems, thus construed. Nowadays, his conclusion is widely challenged. Often, this is because experimental work is seen to somehow demonstrate the cognitive penetrability of perceptual processing, where this is assumed to conflict with the informational encapsulation of perceptual systems. Here, I deny the conflict, proposing that cognitive penetration need not have any straightforward bearing on the conjecture that perceptual processing is composed (...) of nothing but informationally encapsulated modules, the conjecture that each and every perceptual computation is performed by an informationally encapsulated module, and the consequences perceptual encapsulation was traditionally expected to have for a perception-cognition border, the epistemology of perception and cognitive science. With these points in view, I propose that particularly plausible cases of cognitive penetration would actually seem to evince the encapsulation of perceptual systems rather than refute/problematize this conjecture. (shrink)

It is widely alleged that metaphysical possibility is “absolute” possibility Conceivability and possibility, Clarendon, Oxford, 2002, p 16; Stalnaker, in: Stalnaker Ways a world might be: metaphysical and anti-metaphysical essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, pp 201–215; Williamson in Can J Philos 46:453–492, 2016). Kripke calls metaphysical necessity “necessity in the highest degree”. Van Inwagen claims that if P is metaphysically possible, then it is possible “tout court. Possible simpliciter. Possible period…. possib without qualification.” And Stalnaker writes, “we can agree (...) with Frank Jackson, David Chalmers, Saul Kripke, David Lewis, and most others who allow themselves to talk about possible worlds at all, that metaphysical necessity is necessity in the widest sense.” What exactly does the thesis that metaphysical possibility is absolute amount to? Is it true? In this article, I argue that, assuming that the thesis is not merely terminological, and lacking in any metaphysical interest, it is an article of faith. I conclude with the suggestion that metaphysical possibility may lack the metaphysical significance that is widely attributed to it. (shrink)

It has been claimed that naïve realism predicts phenomenological similarities where there are none and, thereby, mischaracterises the phenomenal character of perceptual experience. If true, this undercuts a key motivation for the view. Here, we defend naïve realism against this charge, proposing that such arguments fail (three times over). In so doing, we highlight a more general problem with critiques of naïve realism that target the purported phenomenological predictions of the view. The problem is: naïve realism, broadly construed, doesn’t make (...) phenomenological predictions of the required sort. So, as a result, opponents must resign themselves to attacking specific incarnations of naïve realism, or approach matters quite differently. (shrink)

In his influential book, The Nature of Morality, Gilbert Harman writes: “In explaining the observations that support a physical theory, scientists typically appeal to mathematical principles. On the other hand, one never seems to need to appeal in this way to moral principles.” What is the epistemological relevance of this contrast, if genuine? This chapter argues that ethicists and philosophers of mathematics have misunderstood it. They have confused what the chapter calls the justificatory challenge for realism about an area, D—the (...) challenge to justify our D-beliefs—with the reliability challenge for D-realism—the challenge to explain the reliability of our D-beliefs. Harman’s contrast is relevant to the first, but not, evidently, to the second. One upshot of the discussion is that genealogical debunking arguments are fallacious. Another is that indispensability considerations cannot answer the Benacerraf–Field challenge for mathematical realism. (shrink)

Joint actions often require agents to track others’ actions while planning and executing physically incongruent actions of their own. Previous research has indicated that this can lead to visuomotor interference effects when it occurs outside of joint action. How is this avoided or overcome in joint actions? We hypothesized that when joint action partners represent their actions as interrelated components of a plan to bring about a joint action goal, each partner’s movements need not be represented in relation to distinct, (...) incongruent proximal goals. Instead they can be represented in relation to a single proximal goal – especially if the movements are, or appear to be, mechanically linked to a more distal joint action goal. To test this, we implemented a paradigm in which participants produced finger movements that were either congruent or incongruent with those of a virtual partner, and either with or without a joint action goal (the joint flipping of a switch, which turned on two light bulbs). Our findings provide partial support for the hypothesis that visuomotor interference effects can be reduced when two physically incongruent actions are represented as mechanically interdependent contributions to a joint action goal. (shrink)

Number Nativism is the view that humans innately represent precise natural numbers. Despite a long and venerable history, it is often considered hopelessly out of touch with the empirical record. I argue that this is a mistake. After clarifying Number Nativism and distancing it from related conjectures, I distinguish three arguments which have been seen to refute the view. I argue that, while popular, two of these arguments miss the mark, and fail to place pressure on Number Nativism. Meanwhile, a (...) third argument is best construed as a challenge: rather than refuting Number Nativism, it challenges its proponents to provide positive evidence for their thesis and show that this can be squared with apparent counterevidence. In response, I introduce psycholinguistic work on The Tolerance Principle (not yet considered in this context), propose that it is hard to make sense of without positing precise and innate representations of natural numbers, and argue that there is no obvious reason why these innate representations couldn’t serve as the basis for mature numeric conception. (shrink)

When evaluating theories of causation, intuitions should not play a decisive role, not even intuitions in flawlessly-designed thought experiments. Indeed, no coherent theory of causation can respect the typical person’s intuitions in redundancy (pre-emption) thought experiments, without disrespecting their intuitions in threat-and-saviour (switching/short-circuit) thought experiments. I provide a deductively sound argument for these claims. Amazingly, this argument assumes absolutely nothing about the nature of causation. I also provide a second argument, whose conclusion is even stronger: the typical person’s causal intuitions (...) are thoroughly unreliable. This argument proceeds by raising the neglected question: in what respects is information about intermediate and enabling variables relevant to reliable causal judgment? (shrink)

Set-theoretic pluralism is an increasingly influential position in the philosophy of set theory (Balaguer [1998], Linksy and Zalta [1995], Hamkins [2012]). There is considerable room for debate about how best to formulate set-theoretic pluralism, and even about whether the view is coherent. But there is widespread agreement as to what there is to recommend the view (given that it can be formulated coherently). Unlike set-theoretic universalism, set-theoretic pluralism affords an answer to Benacerraf’s epistemological challenge. The purpose of this paper is (...) to determine what Benacerraf’s challenge could be such that this view is warranted. I argue that it could not be any of the challenges with which it has been traditionally identified by its advocates, like of Benacerraf and Field. Not only are none of the challenges easier for the pluralist to meet. None satisfies a key constraint that has been placed on Benacerraf’s challenge. However, I argue that Benacerraf’s challenge could be the challenge to show that our set-theoretic beliefs are safe – i.e., to show that we could not have easily had false ones. Whether the pluralist is, in fact, better positioned to show that our set-theoretic beliefs are safe turns on a broadly empirical conjecture which is outstanding. If this conjecture proves to be false, then it is unclear what the epistemological argument for set-theoretic pluralism is supposed to be. (shrink)

Should economics study the psychological basis of agents' choice behaviour? I show how this question is multifaceted and profoundly ambiguous. There is no sharp distinction between "mentalist'' answers to this question and rival "behavioural'' answers. What's more, clarifying this point raises problems for mentalists of the "functionalist'' variety (Dietrich and List, 2016). Firstly, functionalist hypotheses collapse into hypotheses about input--output dispositions, I show, unless one places some unwelcome restrictions on what counts as a cognitive variable. Secondly, functionalist hypotheses make some (...) risky commitments about the plasticity of agents' choice dispositions. (shrink)

Hohwy (Hohwy 2016, Hohwy 2017) argues there is a tension between the free energy principle and leading depictions of mind as embodied, enactive, and extended (so-called ‘EEE1 cognition’). The tension is traced to the importance, in free energy formulations, of a conception of mind and agency that depends upon the presence of a ‘Markov blanket’ demarcating the agent from the surrounding world. In what follows I show that the Markov blanket considerations do not, in fact, lead to the kinds of (...) tension that Hohwy depicts. On the contrary, they actively favour the EEE story. This is because the Markov property, as exemplified in biological agents, picks out neither a unique nor a stationary boundary. It is this multiplicity and mutability– rather than the absence of agent-environment boundaries as such - that EEE cognition celebrates. (shrink)